The Pope as ground of Church unity

[Isaiah45_9]

Perfect way to end the way with humor. Thanks

 

[rcwitness]

Ok I see what you mean that Peter refers to him being chosen to go to the gentiles . I thought you meant he was going around reminding folks of his keys , of his being over the others . As I stated Peter indeed was used first and specially in regard to gentiles. Here is my verse where Peter refers to himself not as being over any one, "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds/U] of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

I dont believe Peter’s Primacy and individual authority contradicts his brotherhood with the rest of the Apostles any more than a bishop has over the pastors and deacons and laity under his care. Like ive said, in the most ordinary application of the office of the pope, the role is more of a spokesman/frontman for the sake of clarity and communication. This can also be the same way we look at God guiding his Church leaders. He offers us all the Holy Spirit, but we sometimes dont see eye to eye on things. Jesus gave us an office which allows Himself to shepherd and communicate more expediently to us. A means to confirm what He is asking us to accept.

Remember in Luke ch. 22:24…
The Dispute about Greatness
24 A dispute also arose among them as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 But he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

28 “You are those who have stood by me in my trials; 29 and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial
31 “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded[a] to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” 33 And he said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death!” 34 Jesus** said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you have denied three times that you know me.”

So, here we have the heart of the issue. But we have two aspects which Jesus is trying to balance. We have the appointed leaders who are given the place of greatness by Himself and the Father, and** we have the state of the individual who is able to make his worth as a leader depending on how much he serves in the Spirit of His own Lord. The first is God’s choosing, and not because of any worthiness, and the second is the degree of self denial and conforming our wills to the Will of the Father.

Now, after He Teaches them about true greatness, He addresses Peter specifically and reveals his weakness. But tells him He prayed for his faith, which is the gift of Ex Cathedra, so that when he turns again, he will strengthen his brethren. Jesus allows Peter to be broken by the Devil so that we know it is not Peter’s strength which strengthens us. It is not Peter’s authority which we obey. It is not Peter’s approval we seek. It is Jesus Christ’s prayer to the Office of Chief Apostle. It is the Office of Peter which strengthens us!!!

Don’t agree Paul did it because of “papacy” but was expedient thing to do. Paul was politically astute and understood the Spirit. No one denies Peter had clout and Peter should have been the first to come to Paul’s aid, for he had exclusively and personally received the same message of the gentiles.

 

[spina1953]

I try my best not to engage in [what if’s].

The text is clear. I don’t read past it.

This is almost like arguing against “Sola Scriptura”… sounds like “Solo Petrus”.

Hi Isaiah 45: There is no sola Petrus about it. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. Luke was showing that the early Christian Church was moving away from its Jewish roots. The argument was about Jewish Mosaic laws that Jews held to for centuries. It was no longer the spirit of the law but the legal sense of the law which was why Jesus often spoke against how the laws were practiced by Jews. That being said, it is by understanding the history both secular as well as religious that we might come to the idea of what was going on and how it was resolved. There was no sola Scripturia since there was no one volume of Scripture but scrolls. Peter based his thinking on what he was taught by Jesus and reminded those around him of that, at least that seems to be the case. The what ifs are were meant only to think about it in order to gain some level of understanding of the issues at hand of those times.

 

[rcwitness]

I try my best not to engage in [what if’s].

The text is clear. I don’t read past it.

This is almost like arguing against “Sola Scriptura”… sounds like “Solo Petrus”.

The text is clear, the interpretation not so much.

In the end, there are those who needed Peter to draw on his authority (the circumcision party), there are those who needed Jesus’ personal revelation (Paul), and those who were convinced by the wisdom from above (James).

All were led by the Holy Spirit who believed us Gentiles have received the Holy Spirit outside of the Mosaic Law.

What the O.P. Is asking, is if the Pope serves as a ground for Unity. The Catholic Faith is a testimony to Unity. That was a major influence for me entering the Church. I will defend the office of Peter as having a major role in guiding the faithfull into the One Holy Communion.

Peace and unity of Christ and His Bride.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Isaiah 45: There is no sola Petrus about it.

While it was meant to be humorous. If you read closely you might see as a lot of posts regarding the Catholic position on Peter come out like that.

Peter was the leader of the Apostles.

Agreed.

Luke was showing that the early Christian Church was moving away from its Jewish roots.

Luke is my favorite NT writer.

As a side note - have you read “Dear and Glorious Physician”? It’s a novel but the subtleties around the New Testament and Sacred Tradition are fantastic!

The argument was about Jewish Mosaic laws that Jews held to for centuries. It was no longer the spirit of the law but the legal sense of the law which was why Jesus often spoke against how the laws were practiced by Jews. That being said, it is by understanding the history both secular as well as religious that we might come to the idea of what was going on and how it was resolved.

I have no problem with this. What I have a problem with is jumping into Papal supremacy from the passage.

There was no sola Scripturia since there was no one volume of Scripture but scrolls.

I take it this is meant for lurkers and not me?

Peter based his thinking on what he was taught by Jesus and reminded those around him of that, at least that seems to be the case. The what ifs are were meant only to think about it in order to gain some level of understanding of the issues at hand of those times.

I can’t talk about what Peter based his thinking on .

However, I relate to Peter a lot on a personal level. A lot. I love Peter and I am not questioning his leadership and unique place among the Apostles. I wish my Parish would record the homilies, our Priest once gave a sermon on Peter in what he called “The cloud of Peter” - in essence it shows how Christ worked through Peter during all of Peter’s trials and tribulations. You can see how the devil truly wants to sift Peter by just reading the NT.

Since we are on the what if’s — Why do you think Christ brought John along during the last conversation he had with Peter? And why he rebuked Peter when he questioned the presence of John?

That is a very significant passage.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The text is clear, the interpretation not so much.

I agree, since I am not interpreting this passage but giving it the face values it has

In the end, there are those who needed Peter to draw on his authority (the circumcision party), there are those who needed Jesus’ personal revelation (Paul), and those who were convinced by the wisdom from above (James).

All were led by the Holy Spirit who believed us Gentiles have received the Holy Spirit outside of the Mosaic Law.

What the O.P. Is asking, is if the Pope serves as a ground for Unity. The Catholic Faith is a testimony to Unity. That was a major influence for me entering the Church. I will defend the office of Peter as having a major role in guiding the faithfull into the One Holy Communion.

Peace and unity of Christ and His Bride.

Yes, the Pope serves as a ground of unity. We have over a billion faithful together. No doubt about that. But we have also had 4 amazing Popes in a row, who are strengthening their brothers and tending and feeding Christ’s sheep. But when we have bad Popes they are the ground of discord and separation. And the powers we have given the Popes above the Church puts us in a very precarious situation were we to have Popes that are different form the last 4 we have had.

But by the grace of God and the mercy of Christ we have these wonderful men of God now

Peace,

 

[rcwitness]

I agree, since I am not interpreting this passage but giving it the face values it has

Very crafty ,…

Yes, the Pope serves as a ground of unity. We have over a billion faithful together. No doubt about that. But we have also had 4 amazing Popes in a row, who are strengthening their brothers and tending and feeding Christ’s sheep. But when we have bad Popes they are the ground of discord and separation. And the powers we have given the Popes above the Church puts us in a very precarious situation were we to have Popes that are different form the last 4 we have had.

But by the grace of God and the mercy of Christ we have these wonderful men of God now

The question wasn’t, have all of the individual popes been successfull at unifying the Church. It is a question regarding the papacy. Is the office if the pope grounds for unity, right?

I don’t think the Church denies the destructive potential a pope has, or that some popes have caused disunity. That power comes with the position.

What I will argue, is that it is not the sole responsibility of one bad pope that caused problems. We are all responsible for the holiness of the Church to a degree. Paul took this responsibility personally when he rebuked Peter for his insincere behavior. We all should be actively participating in our Parishes and have genuine relationships with one another. We should pray for our leaders and show them, by example, a good Spirit of submission and obedience to leadership of the Church. Holiness does not come through men, but from the Holy Spirit. But Holy men compel us to goodness, while a wise man can learn from a fool.
So too can a wise man hear Jesus’ voice through a bad pope.

Pray for your pastor, with deeds which are in accordance with your prayers.

I agree, we are in times of good popes! Thank God! We are a Holy Family which relies on one another

 

[spina1953]

While it was meant to be humorous. If you read closely you might see as a lot of posts regarding the Catholic position on Peter come out like that.

Agreed.

Luke is my favorite NT writer.

As a side note - have you read “Dear and Glorious Physician”? It’s a novel but the subtleties around the New Testament and Sacred Tradition are fantastic!

I have no problem with this. What I have a problem with is jumping into Papal supremacy from the passage.

I take it this is meant for lurkers and not me?

I can’t talk about what Peter based his thinking on .

However, I relate to Peter a lot on a personal level. A lot. I love Peter and I am not questioning his leadership and unique place among the Apostles. I wish my Parish would record the homilies, our Priest once gave a sermon on Peter in what he called “The cloud of Peter” - in essence it shows how Christ worked through Peter during all of Peter’s trials and tribulations. You can see how the devil truly wants to sift Peter by just reading the NT.

Since we are on the what if’s — Why do you think Christ brought John along during the last conversation he had with Peter? And why he rebuked Peter when he questioned the presence of John?

That is a very significant passage.

Hi Isaiah 45: I agree with you that it was as you said meant to be humorous and you are correct that many posts about Peter in regards to the Catholic position is like as you state.
So Luke is your favorite writer? Good for you. I like John as my favorite Gospel especially the prelude. No I have not read or eve heard of this book, sounds like it would be very interesting reading. Thanks for the heads up.

Peter was the leader as all would agree. I tend to think that Papal supremacy developed from the fact that in the very early Christian Church all looked to Peter and whatever Peter said was accepted. No doubt that the rest of the Apostles were in union with Peter but also that Peter was in union with them since they all had been taught by Christ Himself and knew the living Jesus and believed in Him. Yes, it was meant for lurkers not you as I know you are up on the history by your posts I have read.

I think it great that you so love Peter the Apostle as he was a very stubborn man at times and very quick to jump to conclusions but also he was a man of considerable humility and was willing to be corrected when wrong. As Jesus told him after his first denying Christ that he would be strong in order to strengthen his fellow Apostles, which I tend to think he did, since they were all going to go their own way to preach the Gospel they would not have Jesus or Peter to always guide them but would have the Holy Spirit, which I think Peter also needed. The devil as you said tried very head to sift Peter like wheat, but failed in on that score. I am not sure why Jesus brought John along with Peter, that is a good question that I will have to think on and then get back to you on it OK? Peace and God bless mike.

 

[spina1953]

Very crafty ,…

The question wasn’t, have all of the individual popes been successfull at unifying the Church. It is a question regarding the papacy. Is the office if the pope grounds for unity, right?

I don’t think the Church denies the destructive potential a pope has, or that some popes have caused disunity. That power comes with the position.

What I will argue, is that it is not the sole responsibility of one bad pope that caused problems. We are all responsible for the holiness of the Church to a degree. Paul took this responsibility personally when he rebuked Peter for his insincere behavior. We all should be actively participating in our Parishes and have genuine relationships with one another. We should pray for our leaders and show them, by example, a good Spirit of submission and obedience to leadership of the Church. Holiness does not come through men, but from the Holy Spirit. But Holy men compel us to goodness, while a wise man can learn from a fool.
So too can a wise man hear Jesus’ voice through a bad pope.

Pray for your pastor, with deeds which are in accordance with your prayers.

I agree, we are in times of good popes! Thank God! We are a Holy Family which relies on one another

Hi rewitness: I am wondering if Peter’s insincere behavior was really Peter trying to please one faction while in other words trying to keep the peace between the two converted Gentiles and converted Jews. He may have done it badly and that may have been the reason as to why Paul rebuked him for taking sides in that Peter was saying one thing while doing just the opposite?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The question wasn’t, have all of the individual popes been successfull at unifying the Church. It is a question regarding the papacy. Is the office if the pope grounds for unity, right?

The office of the Papacy has served for grounds of disunity as well. Without having to go ad hominem on the individual Popes, their behavior has affected the Office in general. Future Popes are inevitable judged from the history of others.

Just like you can make an argument in favor of unity, others can make an argument in favor of disunity. In reality, it is both.

I don’t think the Church denies the destructive potential a pope has, or that some popes have caused disunity. That power comes with the position.

What I will argue, is that it is not the sole responsibility of one bad pope that caused problems. We are all responsible for the holiness of the Church to a degree. Paul took this responsibility personally when he rebuked Peter for his insincere behavior. We all should be actively participating in our Parishes and have genuine relationships with one another. We should pray for our leaders and show them, by example, a good Spirit of submission and obedience to leadership of the Church. Holiness does not come through men, but from the Holy Spirit. But Holy men compel us to goodness, while a wise man can learn from a fool.

The bold above is exactly my point. And I suspect the OP’s point as well. The Church as a whole is the grounds of unity.

So too can a wise man hear Jesus’ voice through a bad pope.

He’s just a vessel… I’ve heard that before.

It’s just harder to hear a good message from a bad person, is it not?

 

[rcwitness]

The office of the Papacy has served for grounds of disunity as well. Without having to go ad hominem on the individual Popes, their behavior has affected the Office in general. Future Popes are inevitable judged from the history of others.

The Office of the Bishop of Rome is just an office. The people in that office have the ability to work righteousness or unrighteousness. You seem to have a very jaded view of the Office because many Protestants have authority issues. There have probably been very few ‘bad Popes’ considering the whole history. And during these times, we would be able to see the overall corruption which brought these unfaithfull men into the office.

Nevertheless, a genuine Catholic is not shallow enough to think whatever a pope does, we should do. The focus should be on the Teachings of the college of Bishops. Just like in my signature from Acts, the first believers devoted themselves to the Teachings of the Apostles. The Teachings of the Apostles and Bishops have always been in Communion with Peter and Bishop of Rome.

Just like you can make an argument in favor of unity, others can make an argument in favor of disunity. In reality, it is both.

When you criticize the mentality to overemphisize the power of the Pope, I think you discard the fact that no Pope has Taught error regarding faith and morals. Plus, there have been only a hamdfull of Teachings which came solely from the Pope with statements of infallibility. These would be the Teachings on Mary. And when Pope Pius IV (correct me if i’m wrong) declared these Doctrines, the overwhelming majority of the Church was pleased.

I personally agree that alot of excessive glory is given to the Pope. I think he is treated like an idol by too many people. But I would certainly be honored to meet him and love to fellowship. I would appreciate his prayers and all that jazz. But in a fundamental way, he is very much not a direct focus for me. My local Church is. Or it should be. And that’s what he would expect! The masses of us Catholics will never even see one of our popes, let alone bring a dispute to him which needs his authority to resolve.

The bold above is exactly my point. And I suspect the OP’s point as well. The Church as a whole is the grounds of unity.

The Church without the Pope would not be the whole Church.

He’s just a vessel… I’ve heard that before.

It’s just harder to hear a good message from a bad person, is it not?

Its not so much hearing a good message through him, but seeing foolish mistakes. But these bad Popes are very few. They are dromned out by the Good ones. But yes, just like priests who cause scars to communities, they can have devistating affects. We are called to takes these sins on ourselves. We are all a holy Priesthood.

 

[spina1953]

I would like to add that during the first few centuries Popes were martyred and the Roman emperors starting with Peter thought by cutting the head so to speak would end this Christian plague as was thought at the time. However, it seems that the more they tried to exterminate the Bishop of Rome seeing it as the foundation of Christianity, the stronger Christianity became. This is not to say that, elsewhere in the empire there were not martyrs , bit that the Romans saw the Bishop of Rome as the leader of Christianity.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Office of the Bishop of Rome is just an office. The people in that office have the ability to work righteousness or unrighteousness. You seem to have a very jaded view of the Office because many Protestants have authority issues.

Sorry Michael, but I think this is grossly an oversimplification of the issue and it ignores other problems with the Office of the Papacy.

It also oversimplifies and ignores the historical facts I have presented.

So no, I don’t have a very jaded view because many Protestants have authority issues.

I have a problem with the historical development of the Papacy and how some Catholics want to ignore that history in the same manner as some Protestants want to ignore the history of the Church.

I have a problem with people wanting to [interpret] Acts 15 as a point to support the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

You have not addressed any of the historical facts I have present and instead are now trying to reflect it on the issue of authority. Just like many Catholic lay apologists like to do… When challenged or presented with historical facts - make an appeal to authority.

There have probably been very few ‘bad Popes’ considering the whole history. And during these times, we would be able to see the overall corruption which brought these unfaithfull men into the office.

To count numbers is irrelevant, it hurts the office period. And it creates a ground of disunity as a result.

Nevertheless, a genuine Catholic is not shallow enough to think whatever a pope does, we should do.

Irrelevant to the conversation as well.

When you criticize the mentality to overemphisize the power of the Pope, I think you discard the fact that no Pope has Taught error regarding faith and morals.

We are not discussing ex-cathedra teachings.

And I am not overemphasizing anything. I gave you the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church. Not an opinion or mentality.

I personally agree that alot of excessive glory is given to the Pope. I think he is treated like an idol by too many people. But I would certainly be honored to meet him and love to fellowship. I would appreciate his prayers and all that jazz. But in a fundamental way, he is very much not a direct focus for me. My local Church is. Or it should be. And that’s what he would expect! The masses of us Catholics will never even see one of our popes, let alone bring a dispute to him which needs his authority to resolve.

That’s fine and dandy. I love the Pope and pray for him as well.

The Church without the Pope would not be the whole Church.

The Church without our Eastern brothers and Protestant brothers is not the whole Church either.

From Dominus Iesus:

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

Are you going to place our Orthodox brothers in the same shallowness of authority problems as our Protestant brothers?

 

[rcwitness]

I have a problem with the historical development of the Papacy and how some Catholics want to ignore that history in the same manner as some Protestants want to ignore the history of the Church.

Do you think that the Popes themselves fabricated these developments? Was it the Bishops in union which defined them?

I have a problem with people wanting to [interpret] Acts 15 as a point to support the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Ok. I’ve shared what I see as Peter’s necessary role there, and there was no other authority which could challenge his stance. If you expected Peter to use more authority than what he showed to prove his primacy, then that would have required further challenges from others. But what he said was sufficient for ending the debate. I am not making more out of the Council than that.

The Church without our Eastern brothers and Protestant brothers is not the whole Church either.

I agree

Are you going to place our Orthodox brothers in the same shallowness of authority problems as our Protestant brothers?

Im not placing anyone anywhere. The Church recognizes their unity as lacking nearly nothing for perfect Communion.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Do you think that the Popes themselves fabricated these developments? Was it the Bishops in union which defined them?

Straw Man. You insist on gearing the conversation on fabrication, which is something you [feel] I am saying. When the fact is I am not.

Did you know that it wasn’t until 1075AD in Pope Gregory VII’s Dictatus Papae.(again immediately after the Schism) that for the 1st time the Pope claimed the following powers (Among others):

1. 
   *]That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
   *]That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
   *]That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
   
   Never before in the history of the Church did we see something like this.
   
   A development, however uncomfortable as it may be, is not necessarily a fabrication.
   

   Ok. I’ve shared what I see as Peter’s necessary role there, and there was no other authority which could challenge his stance. If you expected Peter to use more authority than what he showed to prove his primacy, then that would have required further challenges from others. But what he said was sufficient for ending the debate. I am not making more out of the Council than that.

   That has nothing to do with universal absolute immediate jurisdiction.
   
   Again, you are arguing a straw man. I am not arguing against primacy…

 

[Wandile]

Only twelve out of over 300 bishops that attended Nicea were from the west. No head bishop of Rome was present but certainly delegates from the Church at Rome were present. It is not certain that Rome’s church had anything to do with calling the council or trying to settle the Arian problem. It was an eastern problem. There is no evidence that a head bishop from anywhere, including Rome, had to ratify it, except save for it’s own constituents at the Church at Rome, that is to accept the decrees or not as did other church centers. There is also no evidence of head bishop over all church. “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges” Canon #6…As has been pointed out Ariainism did not die out and fluctuated as did emperor backing (once government gets in it’s a mess) . What councils and popes could not do by God’s grace and the truth of scripture did and Arainism eventually passed away by it’s own discord. Anthanasius claimed scripture is sufficient above all things and fought hard for what we believe today, though he was branded by some churches and politics and councils.

Testimony from the east :

Abbot St. Theodore of Studion (November 11) says in 816 [Letter II:129 to Sakellarios Leo in PG 99:1420A]:
Let him [Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople] assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish **The Western Patriarch [the Roman Pope] to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; ** let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.

And Theodore Abu Qurrah in the 9th century says :

As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city’s throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the church, by summoning the ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places. We ask Christ to confirm us in this forever, that we might inherit through it his kingdom, in that we have joined with it the doing of his commandments. To him be praise, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forever and forever."

 

[rcwitness]

Straw Man. You insist on gearing the conversation on fabrication, which is something you [feel] I am saying. When the fact is I am not.

Im not actually arguing anything. I keep showing how I see Peter’s role as Unifyer exemplified throughout scripture. Im not trying to prove anything, but provide my reasons for believing the Church is able to define what constitutes the role of Peter’s office. I have not dissagreed that its definition, development, understanding among the whole faithfull has been further revealed with greater depth than in the early days.

Did you know that it wasn’t until 1075AD in Pope Gregory VII’s Dictatus Papae.(again immediately after the Schism) that for the 1st time the Pope claimed the following powers (Among others):

1. 
   *]That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
   *]That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
   *]That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.

1. 
   

   Never before in the history of the Church did we see something like this.

   Thanks for answering my question. I did not know that. I personally don’t see that as ‘New Revelation’ like you seem to imply. Maybe you don’t either???
   

   A development, however uncomfortable as it may be, is not necessarily a fabrication.

   Ok, so you believe the Church has the authority to make these claims yet its not necessarily the Will of God? This is just an honest question, im trying to understand your belief.
   

   That has nothing to do with universal absolute immediate jurisdiction.

   Again, you are arguing a straw man. I am not arguing against primacy…

   I didnt say it did. In fact im going out of my way to express I don’t think that Council of Jerusalem gives evidence of the complete power which Peter had. Yet he definitely showed enough authority to end the debate. I dont think he desired to show more than necessary, why would he?
   
   I dont think I am arguing against you like you think I am.
   
   But your biggest biblical support for “universal absolute immediate jurisdiction” would be Matt. 16.
   
   19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
   
   I think this will be the last response with you. I have been trying to address the main concern of the thread, which is the level of unity the Office of the Bishop of Rome provides the Church in relation to Councils. You are very troubled by the doctrines which have developed through history. Im sorry I can’t provide answers to comfort you. I never claimed I could or that you are wrong. I think its a legitimate struggle you have. I personally dont. I have struggles regarding devotions to Mary, so I can understand when things are not very comfortable to embrace.
   
   I hope we talk more in the future, but I think we’ve run out of constructive dialogue on this topic. Peace Bro

 

[benhur]

Testimony from the east :

Abbot St. Theodore of Studion (November 11) says in 816 [Letter II:129 to Sakellarios Leo in PG 99:1420A]:
Let him [Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople] assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish **The Western Patriarch [the Roman Pope] to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; ** let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.

And Theodore Abu Qurrah in the 9th century says :

As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city’s throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the church, by summoning the ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places. We ask Christ to confirm us in this forever, that we might inherit through it his kingdom, in that we have joined with it the doing of his commandments. To him be praise, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forever and forever."

Thank you .These were 500 years after Nicea, by which time the papacy was a much more developed political and spiritual force. If I read your dates correctly, they do not concern Nicea and the second letter is incorrect from my sources for the bishop of Rome did not call for Nicea council, if indeed it is one of the six councils mentioned by Theodore…Again I do not doubt what the papacy is today,or what it was 500 years ago or a thousand. Just don’t see it as being the same as from the beginning. There are no statements in Nicea decrees of need for Bishop of Rome to be in authority over council… I doubt the historical accuracy of your two quotes but not their zeal for the Papacy.

 

[benhur]

I would like to add that during the first few centuries Popes were martyred and the Roman emperors starting with Peter thought by cutting the head so to speak would end this Christian plague as was thought at the time. However, it seems that the more they tried to exterminate the Bishop of Rome seeing it as the foundation of Christianity, the stronger Christianity became. This is not to say that, elsewhere in the empire there were not martyrs , bit that the Romans saw the Bishop of Rome as the leader of Christianity.

Not sure they saw them as leaders over others in universal church. For sure they(emperors) saw anything from Rome as "superior’’ or exemplary as Rome ruled the world. If you martyr the bishops of Rome, irregardless of any "headship’’, you send a message round the world to all the other bishops and Christians. As you say, bishops from many cities were martyred. Don’t see Roman Empire as understanding Bishop of Rome in todays Papal terms

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks for answering my question. I did not know that. I personally don’t see that as ‘New Revelation’ like you seem to imply. Maybe you don’t either???

No… The individual States (read countries) were able to name Bishops. In a nutshell (Since we would have a lot of historical background for this), after the Investiture Controversy the Western Church needed Her ability and power to name and control Her own Bishops (The separation of Church and States was nowhere near what we have today). In this light and since we were separated from our Eastern brothers, the See of Peter [needed] to [have] immediate power, something it didn’t have before. See how development is not necessarily a bad thing?

Ok, so you believe the Church has the authority to make these claims yet its not necessarily the Will of God? This is just an honest question, im trying to understand your belief.

Michael, again you go for authority. And notice I am not arguing against authority, but about the way it was exercised throughout the history of the Church.

I know you don’t intend to (I hope ), but this question is a bit of a trap. If I say that the Will of God is not consistent with the authority of the Church, then I am making myself an authority.

The reasons for the Church development are not exclusively theological. There are a number of developments that arise from political and socio-economical reasons. I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State and I am all for the Church to be able to operate freely from the influence of State.

I believe the Will of God to be for the Church to defeat the gates of hell.

As the Will of God for political reasons? That’s above my pay grade

I didnt say it did. In fact im going out of my way to express I don’t think that Council of Jerusalem gives evidence of the complete power which Peter had.

It really doesn’t.

Yet he definitely showed enough authority to end the debate.

Yes.

I dont think he desired to show more than necessary, why would he?

This is a [what if] type of question.

But your biggest biblical support for “universal absolute immediate jurisdiction” would be Matt. 16.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Nope, that doesn’t help you case .

This same power is given to the other Apostles (Bishops) as well. Read 2 chapters forward in Matthew 18:18.

I think this will be the last response with you. I have been trying to address the main concern of the thread, which is the level of unity the Office of the Bishop of Rome provides the Church in relation to Councils. You are very troubled by the doctrines which have developed through history. Im sorry I can’t provide answers to comfort you. I never claimed I could or that you are wrong. I think its a legitimate struggle you have. I personally dont. I have struggles regarding devotions to Mary, so I can understand when things are not very comfortable to embrace.

Thanks for the good wishes. But please rest assured I am not troubled at all. I understand the reasons behind the developments and they are not innovations like some would like to name them. In fact, from a political standpoint, I agree with these developments - otherwise who knows how much more fractioned we would be today . It is what it is and the past is gone, we are to learn from it and apply ourselves as we move forward.

As for our Blessed Mother, just know that it is [because] of Christ that She is who She is. Her words are the wisest and more clearer than anyone’s: “Do whatever He tells you”.

Peace,